On 2017-09-06 15:45, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-06 14:03, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:44:01 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-09-06 11:10, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-09-02 07:56, wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:49:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-08-30 18:00, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:31:55 PM UTC-7,
Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-29 14:38, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:45:45 AM
UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-29 09:42, sms wrote:
On 8/28/2017 3:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2017 4:28 PM,
wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:59:20
PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-28 13:43, sms wrote:
I replaced the chain that I broke
on Saturday with one I had in my
garage that I must have purchased
five to ten years ago.

It has a connecting link and it
says "Taya" on it. It's for 6,7,8
gearing. It seems okay, but I think
that this is the first time I've
used a chain with a connecting link
since childhood. I looked up Taya
and it's a big Taiwanese chain
manufacturer.


I still have a Sachs-Sedis 7-speed
chain on my road bike which I bought
from a friend as NOS, for $6 which
was the old sticker price (the
sticker had already turned brownish).
No link, mounted with hammer and
anvil as usual. To my utter amazement
it doesn't show any measurable
stretch after over 2000mi and
sometimes I really put the coals on
because of our hills. Even the old
Wippermann chains could not rival
that. I am very religious about chain
cleaning and lube though.

The old 5-6-7 speed Sachs chains wore
out three days after the bike was
junked.


The Sedis (later Sachs-Sedis) material
and Delta hardening process was not only
exceptional but unsurpassed down to today
except for possibly Record chains. That
ended with SRAM.

You can still find some NOS (new old stock)
of the Sedisport 6/7 chains. About $25.


I saw a lot of them on EBay at that price
range stating "pre-owned" in the ad, meaning
used and who knows for how many miles or
whether properly maintained.

The topper I ever saw was "pre-owned"
underwear. Yikes.

What if they were pre-owned by Elizabeth
Taylor?


It was men's underwear ...

What makes you think that Elizabeth Taylor didn't
wear men's underwear? She got pretty large near the
end.

In a less humorousness vein, did you know that "back
in the day" runners used to wear women's panties?


I remember a cowboy on horseback telling us something
similar and it was a real manly John Wayne style guy.
"Now I'll let you in on a secret on how to avoid rashes
from very long rides, but don't ya tell your mama or
anyone for that matter, ya hear?"

Speaking of manly - virtually every single star in
Hollywood after the mid-40's had been in the service and
many of them (often the guys that played bad guys) had
silver stars and purple hearts. Even Soupy Sales and
Ernest Borgnine. The one exception was, surprisingly,
John Wayne, who volunteered three times but they wouldn't
let him in because of a bad back or something.

Today we have these guys playing heros that don't even
know what a hero is.


John Wayne could certainly play them right. On Sunday we
saw "Flying Tigers" for the umpteenth time.

What was one of his sayings? "Courage is being scared to
death but saddling up anyhow".

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Uhm... OTOH, we have him saying to a Viet Namese 6-y/o, at
the end of 'the green berets': "You're what this is all
about." Yea, rite. Uh-huh.


He was right. If we hadn't lost that war the 6-year olds back
then would now not have to live under communism.

That may be, but it's not why we were there.


Then why in your opinion?

History generally says it was to suppress the spread of communism,
just like that line in the movie was meant.
Whoa whoa whoa! Already you make an assumption and try to pretend
that I subscribe to it also.


I did not. Didn't read the question above?


... What makes you think that stopping the
spread of something - evil or not - is done for the benefit of the
future generation, rather than for one's own pleasure, revenge,
satisfaction, zeal, fullfillment of desire or of self, or as an
outlet of natural agression?


It is done for both. However, most of all for coming generations because
a decent human being care more for the offspring whether it's his own or
not.


Seems to me that we need a war every 20 years. Every 20 years there
is a new crop of 20-y/olds, full of natural agression, and their
attitude is contagious, and does affect/spread to the population at
large, to some extent

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...e-vietnam-war/



Quote "The causes of the Vietnam War revolve around the simple belief
held by America that communism was threatening to expand all over
south-east Asia".

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm


Do you think if I google looking for alternative reasons for us to be
in there, that I'll find some? Who cares.

Quote "U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as
the antithesis of all they held dear. ..."

I agree with that sentence.
I agree with it in part, too, but that is not what is in question.

I think that there are a number of reasons that came together why we
were in that war. Not absent is the element of Jihad in our own
souls. Also present were our relationship with France, and our own
fear of losing our own country, after the dominos all fall around us.
Also present was pressure from the industries that benefit, and from
the politicians who subscribe to that.


Yes, there were a lot of other reasons as there are in most wars. The
key one was clear though, to stop the spread of communism.


Capitalism is a great idea. But for a prosecutor to bust up a
monopoly, and break up AT&T or come down on Microsoft, and then say
to a 6-y/o "this is all for you, now you will have a better future"
is (er, would be) just bull****, and deceiving one's self in the
highest possible way. The righteous act for themselves, even when
they are right.


Total laissez-faire isn't a good thing. That can and will result in
situations such as where you can only buy at the company store. I think
most of us would agree that that's not a good thing. Same for the
environment. Some government regulation is necessary or it'll all go to
pots. What is completely undesirable is for the government to take over
our lives and that's what communism is.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/